Wishes for 10 years on from the birth of mirrorless

[IronFilm]

1 hour ago, jonpais said:

You cannot presume the GH5 and GH5s are comparable as they use entirely different sensors.

Nope! Not assuming the GH5 and GH5S have comparable noise performance. 

I'm being bolder than that! ?

Am assuming the GH5S has better noise performance. Is that too bold to assume? I think not. 

Thus if the GH5 has acceptable noise performance for @Shirozina then it is perfectly reasonable for him to assume the same about the GH5S even though he hasn't ever used the GH5S.

[anonim]

I found that @IronFilm here is very patient and civilized in explaining his arguments about an special videomaking case.

But I can't say the same when someone start discussion with sentences as "You do know what you have typed here is complete nonsense?!" and "Complete and utter foolishness!!!" (with double and triple exclamation) and than pompously calling logic as exclusive friend in the narrow, totally practical case of usage with many included variables.

Actually, from my life experience I found silly to keep up discussing when opponents feel themselves so powerful in logic and knowledge that immediately called my view nonsensical and foolish as first argument - rather, I feel it as some sort of causeless aggression. But, of course that's just me, hypersensitive :)

[Robert Collins]

2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

What I'm saying is that the image quality is what matters more, than how it got there. 
Does it matter if the image is created by a thousand or a zillion photons hitting the sensor, if the image we see is the same?

So we should instead be talking about the performances of specific cameras rather than hypotheticals of what would happen in some idealized theoritical world where all sensors behave exactly the same. Which of course is not at all what happens!

So if you have say a Panasonic GH5S camera shooting with a 25mm lens at f2 & ISO 1600, then if we're wanting to do the same with say the new Nikon FX mirrorless camera, then we must use a 50mm lens at f4 with.... and now here comes the slightly tricky part which people keep on tripping over:

1) stay at ISO 1600 but flood the light with four times more light! Which is tricky indeed do manage that much more light, and to still light the scene in a way which doesn't completely make it look differently

2) boost up to ISO 6400, but if this ends up looking worse (dynamic range / color accuracy / noise / etc) than the GH5S' video at ISO 1600 then you've clearly lost something.

 

I have 3 problems here....

1) First of all you asked me to prove with logic and science why bigger sensors performed better than smaller sensors. Now 'science and logic' appears to be dissolving into 'hypotheticals', theoreticals and dare I say it fake news... (where apparently according to you Sony M43 silicon performs better (given its relative size) than Sony FF because I imagine there is more  'mojo'.

2) So as your  point 2) suggests (if we are DOF constrained) we will have to boost the FF up to iso 6400 which 'ends up looking worse'. But really the science suggests otherwise...

DXOmark shows that the SNR of the A7iii is just as good at 6400, if not better, than the GH5 at iso 1600. But, look, here is the single thing that I want you to take away from that graph - the bigger sensor is simply better however you look at it. We can debate how much better, whether its iso and DR

with still charts exaggerate the difference but we are not going to flip those charts.

3) And here is the rub. The smaller sensor GH5 costs a couple of hundred dollars less than the Sony A7iii (or Z6) and the GH5s a couple of hundred dollars more despite its poorer performance. I do understand their attractions in terms of bit rate and bit depth but you are essentially paying at least US$500 over their stills capability for additional video features while with the A7iii and Z6 the video comes for free. Given the prevalence of still photographers amongst hybrid consumers, I think that makes for an incredibly difficult business model for Panasonic to maintain.

[IronFilm]

16 minutes ago, anonim said:

I found that @IronFilm here is very patient and civilized in explaining his arguments about an special videomaking case.

 But I can't say the same when someone start discussion with sentences as "You do know what you have typed here is complete nonsense?!" and "Complete and utter foolishness!!!" (with double and triple exclamation) and than pompously calling logic as exclusive friend in the narrow, totally practical case of usage with many included variables.

Thank you for the kind words.
Although I don't think this is such a narrow/special case for filmmaking, rather it is a pretty normal thought process for DoPs that I've experienced. 

Choosing a specific DoF for a scene is the more normal approach rather than choosing to shoot everything W.F.O! ("Wide Fvcking Open"!)

But for sure, if you're a person who wants to shoot everything W.F.O. then don't buy anything other than full frame cameras, and don't even buy any f1.8 lenses, only buy f1.4 primes! Heck, only buy f1.2 lenses! Nope, even that is not good enough. Only f0.95 lenses for the full frame WFO shooter! ?

 

15 minutes ago, Robert Collins said:

you asked me to prove with logic and science why bigger sensors performed better than smaller sensors.

Nope, I asked you to back up this statement:

6 hours ago, Robert Collins said:

You do know what you have typed here is complete nonsense?!

And my impression is that you haven't. 

At best your argument has boiled down to:
More light hits a bigger sensor. 

Well d'oh, I'd never disagreed with that! :-) 
In fact I have even directly addressed that point. 

It is a bit like arguing an engine is more powerful purely because it has more cubic inches of displacement. 
Yes indeed displacement does matter, no arguments there, but it only is one factor of many! And all those factors are worth considering, rather than just zeroing in on only one aspect to the exclusion of everything else. 

[IronFilm]

 

18 minutes ago, Robert Collins said:

2) So as your  point 2) suggests (if we are DOF constrained) we will have to boost the FF up to iso 6400 which 'ends up looking worse'. But really the science suggests otherwise...

DXOmark shows that the SNR of the A7iii is just as good at 6400, if not better, than the GH5 at iso 1600. But, look, here is the single thing that I want you to take away from that graph - the bigger sensor is simply better however you look at it.

Glad you've now joined my team at last, and realized it is less the sensor size but the results we should look at of specific cameras. 

But a few specific points on this comparison:
1) is GH5 vs a7III what we want to do? I'd suggest GH5S vs a7III
2) you're accepting that in this specific example MFT and FF are equivalent performance. (at least when it comes to the practical experience of shooting at the same DoF)
3) you're comparing stills performance, I'm only discussing video performance, so this is rife with problems to be thinking only about the stills performance and trying to apply it to something completely else
 

[anonim]

23 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Although I don't think this is such a narrow/special case for filmmaking, rather it is a pretty normal thought process for DoPs that I've experienced. 

Choosing a specific DoF for a scene is the more normal approach rather than choosing to shoot everything W.F.O! ("Wide Fvcking Open"!)

But for sure, if you're a person who wants to shoot everything W.F.O. then don't buy anything other than full frame cameras, and don't even buy any f1.8 lenses, only buy f1.4 primes! Heck, only buy f1.2 lenses! Nope, even that is not good enough. Only f0.95 lenses for the full frame WFO shooter! ?

 

Well, for me, it is special when - obviously - doesn't touch everyone's first choices, need, preferences and approaches

And quite contrary, other shooters could also say the same - If you're a person who wants to shoot everything at under ISO1600, go buy your Fucking GH5 camera, etc...

Yes, it seems that I experienced the same in regards of some concrete film making tasks... but some or many advantages of Sony A7 III (it seems that that one is the foundation for discussion) seems indisputable - just, it seems to me not at every single occasion and task...

[IronFilm]

27 minutes ago, Robert Collins said:

3) And here is the rub. The smaller sensor GH5 costs a couple of hundred dollars less than the Sony A7iii (or Z6) and the GH5s a couple of hundred dollars more despite its poorer performance. I do understand their attractions in terms of bit rate and bit depth but you are essentially paying at least US$500 over their stills capability for additional video features while with the A7iii and Z6 the video comes for free. Given the prevalence of still photographers amongst hybrid consumers, I think that makes for an incredibly difficult business model for Panasonic to maintain.

I buy cameras for video performance first. Nearly all my filmmaking friends I have in RL take the same attitude too.

Why? Because I feel stills performance reached the "good enough" level long long ago. 

Video is the last hurdle left to fly over, thus it is better to focus on that first when choosing a camera.

1 minute ago, anonim said:

Well, for me, it is special when - obviously - doesn't touch everyone's first choices, need, preferences and approaches

Hmmm... I wonder if we're misreading each other here?
Of course everyone has their first preferences etc (IBIS/TC/NDs/10bit/HFR/AF/Waveforms/etc)

I was just making the case for why for a fairly large group of shooters the "benefits" of vistavision/FF shooting is not as large(ha!) as the general internet forum buzz seems to think it is. Because there are downsides too

[Robert Collins]

2 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

 

Glad you've now joined my team at last, and realized it is less the sensor size but the results we should look at of specific cameras. 

But a few specific points on this comparison:
1) is GH5 vs a7III what we want to do? I'd suggest GH5S vs a7III

Yes, sure. Unfortunately DXOmark hasnt tested the GH5s but I can assure that the sensor that is a quarter the size of the A7iii will not look pretty in tests especially as the camera actually costs more.

2) you're accepting that in this specific example MFT and FF are equivalent performance. (at least when it comes to the practical experience of shooting at the same DoF)

Sure I have absolutely no problem in accepting that if a camera is DOF constrained then a larger sensor wont help and that the expected result would be the same. Except DOF constrained while it might be a reasonable practical consideration it is the worse possible comparison for the larger sensor. As an example, if an M43 camera is DOF constrained against an Iphone X, in all likelihood the iphone X would come out ahead.

3) you're comparing stills performance, I'm only discussing video performance, so this is rife with problems to be thinking only about the stills performance and trying to apply it to something completely else

Yup sure alhough I do think it is the still photographers who are creating the underlying business model for hybrids. I would perfectly accept that smaller sensors should enable both higher bit rates and higher bit depth in video  - havent seen or heard anyone coherent argument, proof or demonstration that say the the GH5s's higher bit rate and bit depth makes up for and exceeds what it sensor is lacking in terms of DR, ISO and color fidelity.
 

 

[IronFilm]

7 minutes ago, Robert Collins said:

As an example, if an M43 camera is DOF constrained against an Iphone X, in all likelihood the iphone X would come out ahead.

For sure! If a shoot demand DoF that stretches to inifinity and beyond (and just needs a fixed wide angle lens), then indeed I'd seriously consider the latest smartphone for that shoot. 

However that is an as unlikely demand as needing to shoot W.O.F. all the time. 

 

[Robert Collins]

34 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

I buy cameras for video performance first. Nearly all my filmmaking friends I have in RL take the same attitude too.

Why? Because I feel stills performance reached the "good enough" level long long ago. 
 

I understand your point here (and I mostly buy a camera for its stills capability - because I shoot stills mostly.)

But I feel it is at the heart of our disagreement.

I mean think back a couple of years when the GH4 was around. How much would it have cost you for full frame, uncropped, 4k video. Well at least a hell of a lot if you could buy it.

Now a couple of years later it is available from Sony and Nikon. Both these companies are taking the inherent advantages of a larger sensor to offer at no premium better DR and ISO against small sensor video cameras that offer alternative advantages. It sound very like camcorders to me - I just dont see how mirrorless large sensor cameras based on the demands of still photographers will not overpower premium video ILCs based on smaller specs and supported by video enthusiasts... It is simply a numbers game...

[IronFilm]

Stills cameras will never take over the high end cinema market. 
The gap in needs is just too vast. 

However the stills cameras do apply an awful lot of pressure on the low end video market, and even the mid range. 

Today a $10K (such as a C300mk2) video camera are thought of as mid range, when if you'd turn back the clock a while that would have been a low end professional video camera.

They're becoming a lot more affordable!

[jonpais]

3 hours ago, anonim said:

I found that @IronFilm here is very patient and civilized in explaining his arguments about an special videomaking case.

But I can't say the same when someone start discussion with sentences as "You do know what you have typed here is complete nonsense?!" and "Complete and utter foolishness!!!" (with double and triple exclamation) and than pompously calling logic as exclusive friend in the narrow, totally practical case of usage with many included variables.

Actually, from my life experience I found silly to keep up discussing when opponents feel themselves so powerful in logic and knowledge that immediately called my view nonsensical and foolish as first argument - rather, I feel it as some sort of causeless aggression. But, of course that's just me, hypersensitive :)

Shirozina wrote:

Once you get down to base ISO levels where noise is not present there is no advantage other than DOF differences and as the Dual ISO in the GH5s proves sensor size doesn't necessarily mean poor higher ISO performance.  

I replied that with the GH5s, noise is present and visible at all ISOs at normal viewing distances, whereas with the a7 III, noise is not visible until you get to higher ISOs.

Lab tests bear this out - it is not my feeling, a hunch or fanboyism speaking.

IronFilm put words in my mouth, claiming that I said noise would be a big issue for users of the GH5s, which is a falsehood. 

He goes on, putting words in Shirozina’s mouth, saying that if Shirozina said noise was not present in GH5 footage, he must have assumed there was even less in the GH5s. Which, being a mathematician, IronFilm should know there is no such thing as ‘negative noise’.

As a matter of fact, in my years of shooting Panasonic, I don’t recall ever complaining about noise.

However - while Shirozina and IronFilm may not, I and many others appreciate clean, noise-free footage. The difference between mild noise and barely visible  noise may appear insignificant on paper, but it was one of the very first things that struck me when viewing a7 III clips on the timeline after my first shoot.

Especially when sharing on the Web, where, because of compression, noise problems and artifacts in general can become amplified.

Note: in that post, Shirozina neglected to mention the greater dynamic range of full frame. Probably just an oversight. ?

[anonim]

1 hour ago, jonpais said:

Probably just an oversight. ?

I'm glad it is not complete nonsense and complete and utter foolishness - which was, I think, presented as argument about an earlier claim 

Discussion may be endless - for example, what you see as super clear-of-noise image easy may be result of decision to involve too strong NR treatment,  and that pretty easy may be the reason why in general and mostly A7 III samples that I saw till now looks to me little bit on the side of "flat" or so-called "cartoonish" in comparison to, say, your own made with GH5 and Oly pro lenses...

It seems to me that all of these cameras, being so capable, are also so cleverly  based on hiding/diminishing compromises they made at different areas - and it is so good for us users that such compromises seems to be less and less important...

(And, out of strict topic, it seems to me that we often forget that all of these companies are of Japanese origin - I'm sure that at the highest instance, they have some sort of deal how to keep Japanese monopol alive... at one accurately thought-out step and during one year/season pushing further Panasonic, at second Sony, than again Panasonic, than again Sony or Nikon etc... At least, it is quite normal, and I'd do the same way if I'm Japanese patriot above and after all :)

 

[jonpais]

Noise reduction is turned all the way down in my clips and there is an enormous amount of shadow detail in a7 III footage. I see nothing cartoonish at all in the videos or screen grabs I’ve shared shot with the a7 III and quite frankly am at a loss to understand what you are referring to. 

[anonim]

Besides of internal camera NR treatment even at NR turned all the way down - I'm obviously referring to my subjective impressions that are very very often full of mistakes... so it probably has to be one of the such (my special) hard-mistake-cases

[jonpais]

6 minutes ago, anonim said:

Besides of internal camera NR treatment even at NR turned all the way down - I'm obviously referring to my subjective impressions that are very very often full of mistakes... so it probably has to be one of the such (my special) hard-mistake-cases

I see what you did there. Rather than directly confronting my response to you, written in plain English, you start throwing shade at Sony like the fanboy you are. You said I wasn’t civil with IronFilm, I explain my point of view and you begin immediately talking shit about the a7 III.

[anonim]

Oh, but  please, how to confront to the content of claim "I see nothing cartoonish at all in the videos or screen grabs I’ve shared shot with the a7 III" - except what I did: with appology that I still see little bit different, but that I'm probably in mistake?

Throwing shade at Sony - fan boy I am - talking shit - come on...  

21 minutes ago, jonpais said:

You said I wasn’t civil with IronFilm, I explain my point of view and you begin immediately talking shit about the a7 III.

Your point of you was - I'd say: as always - perfectly clear and legitimate even earlier... but I reacted against characterization of someone's equally legitimate argument as "utmost foolishness", for me mostly similar to that that I'm "talking shit"... but it seems that it is sometimes part of your disputing charm as you evaluate it 

[jonpais]

Sony users have for years been well aware of the dozens of problems with their cameras: overheating, convoluted menus, poor ergonomics, screen dimming, color science, no touch screen, poor battery life, lack of lenses... the list goes on and on. No need to rub it in their faces!

So why have so many continued to use cameras they are bat-crazy frustrated with, like the ‘toy’ a6500, for instance? Because of the image quality, I’m guessing.

I don’t know, you might ask @BTM_Pix , who I thought was going to throw his against the wall just a little while ago but who has decided to keep it around a bit longer.

I’m not going to try to convince the many haters here, many of whom don’t have real names, faces or a body of work to show; who continually bash brands like Panasonic and Sony; who put words into people’s mouths and launch into ad hominem attacks the instant reason is not on their side; some of whom don’t even own a camera, which camera to buy.

[BTM_Pix]

9 minutes ago, jonpais said:

I don’t know, you might ask @BTM_Pix , who I thought was going to throw his against the wall just a little while ago but who has decided to keep it around a bit longer.

Don't drag me into it

I have by virtue of its more flexible lens mount and the more or less comparable form factor but better quality stills of it versus the Panasonic GX80 reached what I would describe as a cordial understanding with it.

I don't love it on its own merits necessarily but I'm liking it a lot more when viewed as a poor man's Leica CL.

Like many strained relationships, we have saved it by indulging in a little role play !

[anonim]

But Jon, different impressions hasn't always origin from "haters".

For example, I, personally, think that OOC 4k image of a6500 is better (even very obvious) than comparative of GH5 that I use. But I've also found till now that OOC 4k image of A7 III is not at the level of a6500... Am I wright? I'm not sure, I completely frankly always say - probably not, but that is my impression and I have no other to deal with in my decision.

You are very enthusiastic and elaborative with you choices, and I dare to say that maybe I'm here the first always ready to protect and be grateful to your contributions, a priori enjoying all cameras equally.

I apologize just for one trait of my character: I don't like to be a member in conversation that anyone is called/entitled by rude characterisation, and not to react at least with one sentence against it...